student technology fee committee · 2018-12-21 · mr. greg conyers and mr. jeff putnam crafted the...

S U N Y D O W N S T A T E M E D I C A L C E N T E R

ANNUALREPORT

StudentTechnology Fee

Committee

2012

Meetings and Changes for 2011-2012The Student Technology Fee was established at Downstate in 1999. As one of the requirements of the legislation creating the fee an Annual Report is required. The Student Technology Fee Committee has complied with this requirement every year and posts the report on a number of institutional websites.

The Student Technology Fee Committee had one meeting, December 16, 2010 during which it voted to change the way it was organized and the allocation of funds was accomplished (see below for more information). Therefore there were two Student Technology Fee Committees in 2010/11, the first one, which lasted until December 16, 2010, and the second one which is currently in place (both these committee memberships are named in this report)

This Annual Report will be the first for the new procedure in allocating funds for student technology projects identified by the colleges or support services committees.

Summary of ExpendituresThe Student Technology Fee contributed $382,000 for services in 20010/11. Since the beginning of the fee, in 1999, it has contributed over $3,280,000 and generated an additional $1,100,000 worth of technology, from other sources, in service to our students.

1999 TO PRESENT

OTHERSOURCES$1,100,000

TECH FEE$3,280,000

2

StudentTechnology FeeCommitteeAnnuAlREpoRt

2012

Committee MembershipThe following Student Technology Committee members were named by the student councils and the Downstate administration identify members of the committee. The current operational policy has each college identifying members of it’s own tech fee committee. If you are interested in becoming a member please inform your respective student council president or Dean. If you have comments or suggestions you may speak with any member or email the chair, Dr. Richard Winant. The membership for the beginning of 2010/11 committee was as follows:

n Dr. Matt Avitable (Director, Scientific Computing))n Mr. Paul Chang (Student Rep, COM)n Dr. Margaret Clifton (Faculty CON) n Mr Greg Conyers (Director, ACT) n Dr, Stan Friedman (Assoc. Dean, COM) n Mr. Gennady Gandelsman (Student Rep, CHRP) n Mr. Nitin Goyal (Student Rep, COM)) n Ms. Tara Kelly (Student Rep. COM) n Dr. Jon Kubie (Faculty, COM) n Mr. Brett Laurance (ECT) n Mr. Sean Lavine (Student Rep. COM) n Ms. Haekyung Lee (Student Rep. Grad Sch) n Ms. Maria Lopez (Student Rep. Grad Sch) n Dr. Andrea Markinson (Director, EPIC) n Mr. Khalid Mohamed (Student Rep, CHRPn Dr. Dawn Morton-Rias (Dean, CHRP) n Mr. Boris Mozer (Student Rep, CON) n Mr. Issac Naggar (Student Rep. COM) n Mr. Gregory Parnes (Student Rep, COMn Mr. Kunal Patel (Student Rep. COM) n Mr. Jeff Putman (Asst. Dean, Student Affairs) n Mr. Daniel Rainwater (Student Rep. COM) n Mr. Stephen Simoni (Student Rep. CON) n Ms. Jacqueline Turk (Student Rep, CHRP n Dr. Fred Volkert (Faculty, COM) n Mr. Charles Wang (Student Rep. COM) n Dr. Richard Winant (Director of Libraries) n Ms. Melanie Wong (Student Rep. COM)n Dr. Daniel Ehlke (Faculty, SPH)n Dr. Aleida Llanes Oberstein (Faculty, CHRP)n Mr. John Anthonypilla (Student Rep. COM)n Ms. Sutanya Absolum (Student Rep)n Mr. Abraham Katz (Student Rep)

3


2012

2011/12 Final Student technology Committee MembersAfter the December 16, 2010 meeting the colleges formed their own Tech Fee Committees and the Support Services formed theirs based on the budget allocation formula. The following Student Technology Fee Committee mem-bers form the group that reviews and advices the committees formed by the colleges and support services.

n Matt Avitable/Downstaten Greg Conyers/Downstaten Stanley Friedman/Downstaten Richard Winant/Downstaten Dawn Morton-Rias/Downstaten Lorraine Terracina/Downstaten Fredric Volkert/Downstaten Tanya McPherson/Downstaten Jeffrey Putman/Downstaten Margaret Clifton/Downstaten Aleida Llanes-Oberstein/Downstaten Daniel Ehlke/Downstaten Amirfarbod Yazdanyar/Downstaten Mark Stewart/Downstaten Jennifer D. Brown/Downstaten Pascal J. Imperato/Downstate

Student technology Committee Structure and processMr. Greg Conyers and Mr. Jeff Putnam crafted the following policy and procedure statement which was approved by the Student Technology Fee Committee for implementation:

n During the summer of 2010, the student technology fee committee, agreed to a new process of allocating student technology fee revenue. This new method placed the planning process in the hands of the col-leges and support services, instead of the round the table approach of previous years. The new process was meant to insure proposed projects fit into the plans of the colleges and support services in their efforts to improve information and educational technology services to students.

College CommitteesThe Dean of each college is required to appoint a tech fee committee for their respective school or service and as a matter of institutional policy in-clude at least 2 student representatives. The membership of the committee must be provided to the Chair of the Oversight Committee at the beginning of the academic year (date to be determined by the Oversight Committee Chair). This committee would be charged with spending the funds allocated to the respective college. Funds not spent in a particular year will be rolled over to the next academic year. Each College would manage their own acquisitions through accounts allocated to the college under the student tech fee ac-count. In the event that a college does not convene a committee after written request by the oversight committee, the oversight committee may redis-tribute the funds assigned to that committee equally to the remaining local college based committees.4


2012

At the end of each academic year, each College Committee will prepare an end of year report on their projects, expenditures, and future plans which will be delivered to the chair of the Technology Fee Oversight Committee for inclusion in the annual report.

Support Service RepresentativesEach support service will have one representative with a standby. The sup-port service areas include the Library, Academic Computing, Audio Visual and the Advanced Learning Resource Center. The assignment of representative(s) from each area must be provided to the Chair of the Oversight Committee at the beginning of the academic year.

At the end of each academic year, each Support Service will prepare an end of year report on their projects, expenditures, and future plans which will be delivered to the chair of the Technology Fee Oversight Committee for inclu-sion in the annual report.

Technology Fee Oversight CommitteeThe oversight committee is to be comprised of the chairs of the College Committees, the Support Service Representatives (as identified above), and a representative of the Division of Student Affairs. The charge of this commit-tee is:1. To provide the subcommittees with general guidance as to what purchas-

es may be made according to statute with technology fee funds2. To audit purchases made by the subcommittees restricted to ensure

compliance with the relevant technology fee statutes as follows:a. A description of the purchase approved by a subcommittee will be

submitted via email to the members of the oversight committeeb. If there is no objection within 4 business days, the requisition will be

co-signed by the chair of the Oversight Committee at which time the purchase can proceed.

c. In the event that an audit issue is raised, the Chair of the oversight committee will convene the oversight committee to review the issue and make a recommendation.

3. To allow a venue for proposing collaboration amongst colleges and sup-port groups for large projects as follows:a. If a subcommittee is interested in a larger collaboration, the chair will

send an email to the oversight committee to determine interest from the other members.

4. To make adjustments to distribution and/or target of allocations (Approval by 7 of the 10 committee members required)

5. Convene a yearly meeting to review process and solicit general student feedback as follows:a. At the beginning of each academic year, the oversight committee

will convene a meeting with a quorum of the student representatives from each college. The agenda for this meeting will be to review and approve the projected allocations for each college / support service and to solicit suggestions for Center-wide projects and/or support service expenditures.

6. Each year, the Chair of the Technology Fee Oversight Committee shall prepare an Annual Report, which includes information from each of the College-based subcommittees and each support service, to be posted on the institutional web site.

5


2012

Formula for Distribution of Technology Fee fundsFunds from the technology fee revenue will be allocated directly into sub ac-counts of the Technology Fee account as follows:1. College Committees 58% of respective college student contribution to

the technology fee as collected by the bursar2. Support Services allocation as percent of tech fee revenue collected by bursar

a. Library 20%b. Academic Computing 13%c. Audio Visual 5%d. Advance Learning Resource Center 4%

Changes to this formula can only be made as per charge of oversight commit-tee above

The estimated revenue for the 2010-11 academic year is

Fall 2011 Tech Fee BreakdownRow Labels Sum of Charge Amt College Percent ( x2College Health Rel $41,186.36 $23,888.09 $47,776.18Professions College of Medicine $104,753.42 $60,756.98 $121,513.97 College of Nursing $33,765.88 $19,584.21 $39,168.42No College Designated $750.72 $435.42 $870.84Public Health $6,678.52 $3,873.54 $7,747.08School of Graduate $3,958.94 $2,296.19 $4,592.37StudiesGrand Total $191,093.84 $110,834.43 $221,668.85

x2 for year $382,187.68

Support Services x2 Library (%20) $38,218.77 $76,437.54 Academic $24,842.20 49,684.40 Computing (13%) Audio Visual (5%) $9,554.69 $19,109.38ALRC (4%) $7,643.75 $15,287.51 $80,259.41 $160,518.83

College+Support $191,093.84 $382,187.68

6


2012

2010/11 Student technology Fee ExpendituresThe following projects were carried over from 2009/10 and were identified for funding during the 2010/11 fee year

Expense ReportVendor Expense Type Cost NotesScholar Educational Database $1,495.00 Systems ITC Card Readers $4,500.00Copyright Clearance Site License $10,800.00Adwar Video Monitors Conf. Rooms $7,301.44Every Conference Table Conference Table $2,049.99Adwar Video Projector $2,738.73

$37,437.90

The following were the planned expenditures by the colleges and support ser-vices based on an allocation formula and following the agreed procedures to expend (projects are reviewed by the Tech Fee for appropriateness in support of student technology)

College of Health Related ProfessionsStudent Technology Fee SubcommitteeAnnual Report June 22, 2012

Co-Chairs Aleida Llanes-Oberstein Midwifery James Neill Educational Computing OfficeMembers- Joanne Katz Physical Therapy Kenneth Martinucci Radiologic Technology Yosefa Pessin Diagnostic Medical Imaging Alisha Ohl Occupational Therapy Edison Ruiz Physician Assistant Yalini Senathirajah Medical Informatics Dawn Morton-Rias Dean, CHRP, Dorothy Waleski Associate Dean CHRP Peter Hultberg CHRP Student Representative Student Tech Fee Daphne Zelaya CHRP Student Representative Student Tech Fee

Meeting Dates for Academic Year 2011-2012: Student Technology Fee Committee: 8-9:30 a.m.October 5; February 1; April 4; May 2.

Current Activities & Accomplishments (Student Technology Fee):1. Inventory of Purchases:

a. The committee developed a list of DVDs and equipment purchased and where they are housed. The goal of developing this list was so that the purchases can be shared throughout the college.

b. The list has been posted to the CHRP Faculty Group in PRIME.c. A link to the Inventory List has also been added to the CHRP Student

Group.7


2012

2. The Student Technology Fee Subcommittee reviewed two rounds of propos-als during the current academic year. The proposals that were submitted and the funding decisions are as follows:

FY 2012Funds Carried Over From FY 2011: $2535.58Estimate FY 12: $47,776.18Overall Budget: $ $50,311.76

Submitted Proposals–Round 1

Person Submitting Proposal/Department

Proposal Cost % of Total Budget

Vote/Decision

DMI Recurring ex-pense for 4 years for extended war-ranty: Gammex Doppler Flow System purchased in FY11

$1138.00 2.2% Non-applicableExpenditure approved in FY11

PT- Angela Griffin 50 Lifecorder Ex Activity Monitors (NL 2200) in-cludes 3% ship-ping & handlingRevised to 12

$12,913.63$3099.15

25.7%6.2%

6/8 Yes2/8 NoThe vote reflects a revised proposal to only include 12 Activity Monitors.APPROVED

PT- Laurie Seckel Educational DVDs $1685.00 3.3% 8/8 Yes0/8 NoAPPROVED

OT- Alisha Ohl #1 30 Digital RecordersRevised to 10 of another type of re-corder with addi-tional capabilities.

$1199.70$1199.90 + Shipping

2.3% 7/8 Yes1/8 NoThe vote reflects a revised proposal to only include 10 Digital Recorders with ad-ditional capabili-ties.APPROVED

OT- Alisha Ohl #2 15 Digital Scales $273.75 0.5% 7/8 Yes1/8 NoAPPROVED8


2012

OT- Alisha Ohl #3 iTunes Gift Card for iPad& iPod Touch AppsRevised so that the cost of the apps reflects the dollar amount of the gift card.

$500.00($160.86 cost of apps listed in proposal)$418.48 total cost of apps

0.9% 8/8 Yes0/8 NoThe vote reflects a revised proposal.APPROVED

PT – Farhad Haeri 1400 L Upgrade from 4 to 8 channels of Electromyography

$3,050.00 6.0% 8/8 Yes0/8 NoAPPROVED

MW- Aleida Llanes-Oberstein #1

Educational DVDs $400.00 0.8% 8/8 Yes0/8 NoAPPROVED

MW- Aleida Llanes-Oberstein #2

Simulab Episiotomy/Suturing/Local Anesthesia Task Trainer

$4731.00 9.4% 8/8 Yes0/8 NoAPPROVED

MI- Yalini Senathirajah #1 (for the MI Students)

8 copies of Microsoft Visio Standard 2010 Academic8 copies of Microsoft Project Professional AcademicWill be funded by the Office of Educational Technology and will be installed on all of the comput-ers in the Medical Informatics Lab.

$22240%

4.4%0%

8/8 Yes0/8 No

MI- Yalini Senathirajah #2

AccessNET PACS training system

$ 6800.00 13.5% 8/8 Yes0/8 NoAPPROVED

(Note: The Access NET PACS Training System for Medical Informatics that was approved in round 1 was not purchased $6800)

9


2012

Round 2

Person Submitting Proposal/Department

Proposal Cost % of Total Budget

Vote/Decision

Dimitrios Papanagnou/ALRC

CAE Healthcare’s Vimedix Ultrasound Simulator

$63,525.00CHRP: $15,881.25 (Cost to be divided be-tween CHRP and COM 25/75)

31.6% 7/7 Yes0/7 No

PT- Jim Neill CHRP PT Classroom Audiovisual System

$7,784.19(If not enough funds in FY 12 then it will be a priority item for FY 13)

15.4% 7/7 Yes0/7 NoAPPROVED

MI- Yalini Senathirajah

Hardware & Software

$12,256.00$7076.00 was approved

14% 7/7 Yes0/7 NoAPPROVED

Dawn Morton-Rias/Dean’s Office

1 Year Subscription to Health Video Series

$1504.65 3% 6/7 Yes1/7 NoE-mail vote 2-21-2012APPROVED

May 2, 2012

1. Review of budget and revised figuresa. Aleida met with Tanya McPherson to review the CHRP Student

Technology Fee balance since the Centerwide figures did not match the actual CHRP balance. The discrepancy was due to the fact that the cost of the Medical Informatics AccessNET PACS training system, $6800, had already been deducted even though the system was never purchased.

2. ALRC allocation $15,881.25a. The College of Medicine did not agree to share the cost of the CAE

Healthcare’s Vimedix Ultrasound Simulator.b. The committee members present voted to reallocate the funds as

follows:i. Fund the PT equipment during this fiscal yearii. The remaining balance will be used to supplement the ECT pur-

chase of the CHRP classrooms AV equipment and podiums.3. The meeting time will be changed to 5-6:30 pm for the 2012-2013 aca-

demic year.4. Peter Hultberg will inform the CHRP Council that another student mem-

ber of the committee will be needed since Daphne Zelaya is graduating.5. The Medical Informatics revised proposal was reviewed. Since the

campus does not support IBM computers, it was recommended that an 10


2012

extended warranty be purchased for the IBM Thinkpads. Yalini will get a quote and submit a revised proposal.

6. Final funding for FY 2011-2012 (Includes revised quote for PT equipment 5-16-12):a. Spent to date: $16,443.45b. Total available: $33,868.31c. Recommended for Funding:

i. DMI Warranty: $1138.00ii. Medical Informatics: $9395.09iii. PT Classroom AV Equipment: $ 7,722.14

d. Balance for CHRP Classroom AV Equipment: $ 15,613.08

State University of New York Downstate Medical Center College of Nursing June 2012Committee members in alphabetical order: Prof. M. Casapao, Prof. M. Clifton (Chair), Prof. Joseph Jennas, Dr. J. Neill (Co-chair), Dr. P. Kizilay, Dr. M. Rosario-Sim, Folake Wimbish (student representative)

The following projects were carried over from 2009/10

Audio-Visual upgrade of 3 classrooms within the college of nursing. Encumbered funds for the project: $51,836.28

Projects discussed by the committee during 2011-2012, and approved by the committee for future purchase include: Supplementing encumbered funds for the planned audio-visual upgrade as needed.

1. Iclicker base $200. 1 unit2. Logitech Speaker System 4 units: 199.963. Educational DVDs: $6,123.

Items 1-3 were submitted for processing.

Purchasing a high-fidelity patient simulator. Cost is quoted as:$37,000. Is a proposal for approved by the committee for future purchase.

No expenditures are reflected for the year 2011-2012. The fiscal allocation for 2012: $39,168.42 is being encumbered. Combined with the existing $51,836.28 the current funds reflected equal $91.004.70

Respectfully submitted,

Margaret Clifton Ed.D, ,RN

11


2012

School of Public Health School of Public Health Student Technology Fee Committee 2011-2012 Academic Year ReportFaculty representatives Drs. Amstislavski, Ehlke, and Grice-Sheff,Student representatives Chris Donnelly, and Ariel Matthews present

The first meeting of the 2011/12 student tech fee committee transpiredbetween approximately 1 and 1:40PM, Monday, November 14, 2011The second took place on March 7, 2012, when the approval process for the items in the first meeting went forward.

The committee first discussed its general mission and goals, and strove to come up with an initial plan forward. The shortcomings of the approach em-ployed last year were acknowledged, and a means of addressing these weak-nesses developed. By the end of last academic year, there was still a lack of consensus amongst student body and faculty as to the apportioning of the tech fee monies for that year, and the committee chair failed to put forward a strong committee position. As a result, the tech fee money from last year was simply carried over into this year. The present committee thus decided to solicit tech requests from students and faculty alike early in the process, and then formulate a strong committee position/’wish list’,to be forwarded on to the Downstate (overarching) committee.

The chair solicited initial tech requests from members of the committee. Dr. Amstislavski, citing previous requests from students, voiced the need for hand-held GPS units, capable of writing data to a geographic database. He also noted the usefulness of Google Earth Professional when it came to publishing map data. On behalf of the student body, Mr. Donnelly and Ms. Matthews cited the need for more SAS (software) licenses, as well as ad-ditional licenses for a similar statistical program, SPSS. It is thought these needs could be fulfilled internally, by contacting the campus license-holders for said programs, and may not necessarily need to come out of the tech fee balance. It was thus agreed to contact these license representatives. A similar approach was recommended when it came to Dr. Grice-Sheff’s inquiry re: further licenses for the program plug-in Adobe Presenter. If internal resources within the realm of these software programs is found to be insuf-ficient, provision will be made within the context of the tech fee.

A timeline was then developed that will govern future committee action. Notices will be sent to faculty and students soliciting technology requests, with a deadline of the end of February. A second meeting of the tech fee committee will then be called for early March, with all committee action wrapped up by April (and SPH recommendation sent off to the overarching Downstate committee for approval).

March 7, 2012 meeting minutesThe minutes from the 11/14 (first semester) meeting were approved.An updated expense report was distributed to committee members, showing a total in excess of $15,000. This is comprised of last year’s total of $8000, and a current year allocation of around $7700.

The technology items requested at the previous meeting were reviewed. These requests included three hand-held GPS units (around $300 each/$900 total), one site license for Google Earth Professional ($400), additional site licenses for SAS and SPSS statistical software, as well as one

12


2012

additional license for Adobe Presenter. The chair will contact Jim Neill and James Wheedon to see if there are site licenses available for SAS and SPSS through Downstate. Failing that, we will move on to more precise pricing of these items and purchase through the technology fee fund.

The floor was then opened to additional technology requests. Student rep-resentative Chris Donnelly indicated a request had been made for a wireless router, to be installed in the SPH Lounge. He also mentioned the need of one additional desktop computer for the Lounge. The committee decided to inquire as to the status of the present router in the room, and Dorine is cur-rently inquiring as to its proper functioning with Information Services. If that router can be brought into working order, no further action will be necessary on that front. Student representatives did stress that an additional desktop computer (and working router, for laptop users) would facilitate studying in that space. Dr. Grice-Sheff also indicated that a router would be useful in the fifth floor conference room, where the Internet signal is notoriously weak.

As there is likely to be considerable funds left over even after the above items are considered, the committee decided to send one additional remind-er out to department chairs, and the student representatives opted to do the same for the student community. Within the next two weeks, the committee will continue to take requests. Members will also dedicate further research to pricing the items currently under consideration. A final committee vote on technology requests will be taken by the end of the month, with decisions sent on to the campus-wide technology fee committee at that time.

LibraryThe Library submits it’s overall plan to the Edcuational Technology Fee Committee for review. It also submits individual projects to the committee for review as the year progresses.

Department Expense Type CostLibrary Database 58,411.82 Wireless Project 1,205.62 Database 25,000.00 Database 1,495.00 AV Cables 5,828.95 Annotation Pens 561.00 Monitors 1,995.70 USB 323.75 Microphones/AV 8,082.00 Cables/Switches 1,760.41ALRC Management Trainer 6,913.90 Reimbursement 5,000.00 Cart 2,565.35

Total 119,143.50

13


2012

COM The College of Medicince has students on it’s committee and has had it’s projects reviewed by the Educational Technology Fee Committee. Iclicker Clickers 15,511.80G-Systems Wireless Project 1,205.63 Presidio Wireless Project 56,316.00

Total 73,033.43

Grad schThe Graduate School has students on it’s committee and has had it’s proj-ects reviewed by the Educational Technology Fee Committee.

Worthington Direct Training Table 811.96Staples Chair 1,199.94Eureka Telecom Cables 3,717.95

Total 5,729.85

ECTThe Education Computer Center funding was approved based on college tech committee, Deans input, and faculty committees. All projects were reviewed by the Student Technology Committee and approved.

College Expense Type CostECT Dell Computers License 4,225.95 Mathworks Software 2,250.00 CDW Microphones 1,195.96

Total 7,671.91

Professor Aleida Llanes-Oberstein and her colleagues on the CHRP Tech Fee Committee wrote the following guidelines for processing projects to expend their college’s allocation.

1. College of Health Related Professions Educational Technology Steering Committee Student Technology Fee Proposal Template

What is the name of the equipment and where can it be purchased?

a. This Biomed equipment is a GAMMEX Doppler Flow System 1425A LE phantom.

Product Overview The Gammex 1425A LE Doppler Flow System tests both Doppler and

B-mode ultrasound systems using one uniquely designed unit. Gammex combines its low matrix unit strategically placed line reflectors and anechoic cystic targets at 2, 4, and 6 mm depths and 5mm vessels are incorporated into the system to meet FDA Doppler sensitivity recommen-dations. One is parallel to the scan plane at 2 cm, replicating the carotid artery. The other vessel descends 45 degrees from the surface to test 14


2012

Doppler sensitivity and train different scanner techniques. All of this is combined with a fluid controller with microprocessor that has arrange of 1 to 12.5 ml/sec within 30% FS, You can access five programmable tests programs and five preset pulse flow patterns for an easy to use display panel. This allows for accurate and reproducible testing time after time.

By combining the flow system, phantom, and electronic flow controller into a self- contained dual purpose Doppler Flow System, the Gammex 1425A LE is an excellent instrument for performing a multitude of func-tions. Scanner selection, quality control testing, training and research can all be performed using this multi-faceted ultrasound tool.

All of the following quality indicators can be measured in real time:• Maximum penetration• Channel isolation or directional discrimination• Registration accuracy of duplex sample gates and similarities be-

tween B-mode and Doppler flow images• Flow rate readout accuracy for various angles, beam directions and

operating frequencies.

The Gammex 1425A LE is not only one of the most versatile dual-pur-pose systems that is available, but it’s completely portable as well. This makes our Doppler Flow System perfect for ultrasound quality control testing, training, and research can all be performed using this multi-facet-ed ultrasound tool.

Approved by the CHRP Educational Technology Steering Committee

1/19/2011

2. Who would benefit?• Both junior and senior students of the Diagnostic Medical Imaging

program.

3. What, if anything, is currently available at SUNY Downstate Medical Center?• There is an old Doppler phantom, similar to the Gammex 1425A LE,

which has been sitting in our scanning lab since I was a student. It didn’t work then and still does not function now.

4. What would this bring in terms of functionality or in terms of continued functionality?• The incorporation of real time imaging with the theoretical knowledge

gained from Ultrasound physics will make it easier for the students to understand the abstract concepts of ultrasound.

• As a manager/sonographer we are required to set up and/or main-tain a Quality Assurance program for all ultrasound equipments in the department. Incorporating the Phantom into our ultrasound phys-ics curriculum will benefit our graduates in the future.

5. Does it result in cross-collaboration between departments in CHRP?• Unfortunately not. It is specific to ultrasound equipment evaluation

and training sonographers.

15


2012

6. Is there service/maintenance included?• Comes with a one year Warranty• Extended Warranty plans are available.

7. Include price quote.a. The purchase price is $11,380.00

8. Include a purchase requisition.

2011/12 Allocation amountsThe following are the 2011/12 Allocation amounts and any carry over from 2010/11

Student Tech Distribution estimate for FY11/12Department Current Balance Estimate FY12 Total (11/12)Library $6,991.32 $76,437.54 $83,428.86College of Medicine $100,488.20 $121,513.97 $222,002.17College Health $2,535.58 $47,776.18 $50,311.76 Related Professsions College of Nursing $0.00 $39,168.42 $39,168.42School of Public Health $8,000.00 $7,747.08 $15,747.08School of Graduate $270.10 $4,9684.40 $95,684.40Studies Academic Computing $46,000.00 $49,684.40 $95,684.40Audio Visual $74.81 $19,109.38 $19,184.19ALRC $1,735.16 $15,287.51 $17,022.67No College Designated $870.84 $870.84

Total $166,095.17 $382,187.69 $548,282.86

16


2012

student technology fee committee · 2018-12-21 · mr. greg conyers and mr. jeff putnam crafted the...

Documents